Filed: Sep. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CALVIN FONVILLE, a/k/a Cal, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:95-cr-00049-RBS-3) Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Fonvi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7023 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CALVIN FONVILLE, a/k/a Cal, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:95-cr-00049-RBS-3) Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Fonvil..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CALVIN FONVILLE, a/k/a Cal,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:95-cr-00049-RBS-3)
Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Calvin Fonville, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Fonville appeals the district court’s order denying
his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Fonville, No. 2:95-cr-00049-RBS-3 (E.D. Va. June 17, 2015). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2